SINGAPORE: Cricket's world body passed a wide-ranging and controversial shake-up of its governance and structure despite strident protests that it gives too much power to the "Big Three" of India, England and Australia.
The dominant trio seemed to be the big winners after the proposals were approved by the necessary eight out of 10 full members at a hastily convened International Cricket Council (ICC) board meeting in Singapore.
Sri Lanka, Pakistan and South Africa had all opposed the revamp when it was debated last month, but South Africa's Chris Nenzani voted in favour at Saturday's meeting. Sri Lanka and Pakistan abstained.
In the revamped ICC, India — which contributes 80 percent of global revenues — and fellow powerhouses England and Australia will have permanent seats on a new, five-member executive committee.
The committee will make recommendations to the decision-making body, the ICC board, which will be chaired by India's N. Srinivasan from the middle of this year.
Revenues will be distributed according to countries' contributions — financial, sporting and historical — but the seven non-"Big Three" members will be boosted by a new Test Cricket Fund.
The Future Tours Program, designed to guarantee series for all Test teams, will be changed with a series of binding, bilateral agreements to be struck between members.
And the World Test Championship, which was due to debut in 2017, has been scrapped, with the one-day Champions Trophy continuing in 2017 and 2021. The Test championship was deemed unworkable, a statement said.
The representatives of South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka did not give details about their positions as they left the meeting, although Sri Lanka's Nishantha Ranatunga said he would hold discussions with his board.
"Pakistan and Sri Lanka believed that they needed more time to discuss the amendments to the resolutions with their respective boards," said ICC president Alan Isaac.
"There is a hope that when we come back at the next meeting that they will able to also support the resolutions."
India's Srinivasan and Australia's Wally Edwards declined to comment, but their fellow "Big Three" member, England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke, called it "a very good meeting".
"There was general agreement and (it was) all very satisfactory," he told AFP.
The approval came as some surprise given the loud opposition which has erupted in the cricketing community to the original proposals made by the three influential countries.
Ahead of the meeting, a leaked document detailed South Africa's reaction to the original proposal, which it called "extremely disappointing and indeed hurtful when originating from three great cricketing nations".
Pakistan great Imran Khan said the plan smacked of colonialism, while Lord Harry Woolf, author of a report which urged greater distribution of power at the ICC, called it "alarming" and "entirely motivated by money".
"I don't see how if we had this to consider we could see it as anything but a retrograde step," Woolf told Britain's Daily Telegraph.
"It is giving extraordinary powers to a small triumvirate of three people, and everybody else has got no power to say anything or do anything," the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales said.
"It seems to be entirely motivated by money."
Anti-corruption group Transparency International expressed "serious concern... the intention to entrench a privileged position for 'The Big Three' appears to be an abuse of entrusted power for private gain".
Sri Lanka had also complained that the proposals violated the ICC constitution by not distributing revenues equally between members.
Despite the concerns, Isaac said it was important that cricket's most influential countries now had a greater stake in the ICC, rather than be at risk of drifting away.
"It's been very important I think for ICC to have more commitment from those three members," he said.
"They would say to you I think that in the past they've tended to concentrate on matters in their own country and perhaps not always spent the time helping, leading the ICC.
"So their original proposal was really part of a commitment to get more involved in the leadership of the ICC."
Several of the proposals still need to be adopted by the ICC's Full Council, and they will be drafted by various committees before being submitted for approval.
Cricket controversy: ICC passes revamp favoring 'big three'
Related
Let’s see if I can segue seamlessly from one subject to another. Now, I am all for a little cry when you are playing for your country and emotions come to the fore. It is a nice goose bumpy feeling and no one grudges you that. That flag flies for you. But Rafa’s sobs at the Aussie finals were a bit tacky especially when you saw how he bent the injury rules much to Wawrinka’s annoyance. According to both Stanislaw and Roger the constant grunting and the extra delay in serving were being overlooked by the umpires, a strategic fouling that upsets the other guy’s rhythm.
Besides, Nadal isn’t a newcomer to victory by any means so man up, Sir…and cease this detestable boo hooing instantly. Not that this absolves the fans from jeering, which is just so wrong in any sport but especially in a top tennis tournament. What has happened to the quality of tennis spectators that they have fallen to raspberries?
From agony to hubris and there is tangible outrage over the new ICC plot to give India, Australia and England exalted status in the fresh scheme of things loaded with veto power and a high-octane decision-making authority that is almost colonial in nature and reduces the other nations to second class citizens. The central point being that India coughs up 80 percent of the global revenue and should, therefore, have more executive power with the other two being runners up in the financial stakes and so eligible for more clout. That means the Windies, the Kiwis, the Lankans, the South Africans, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis become shabby relatives at a rich man’s wedding.
That a solution has to be found to the current dog’s breakfast called the ICC is a given. In the eloquent words of Mike Artherton: “Politics, race and personalities interfere with any decisions. Two member nations are known to be corrupt, four are essentially broke, most cricketing nations rely on India to keep going.”
The 2012 Woolf report calling for more transparency, better governance and an independent board rusts in its own glory. It creates competition for the Indians and they don’t want that.
While there is a reluctant acceptance that cricket worldwide needs India desperately, there is no guarantee that superpower status will necessarily mean more fairness or efficiency. On the contrary if you go by the arrogant, almost rude, tenor of the BCCI’s demand for a “promotion to a higher ground” this conceited body will just become so much more despotic.
More liberal folks like Pakistan’s Ramiz Raja dredge for virtue in the reworked pyramid. This way the three top tier nations will have to play their “quota” of games against the rest thereby oiling the turnstiles and making for a more equitable distribution of the finances. So the Aussies will go to Bangladesh as part of the new fixtures cycle and Pakistan will invite England and India will play the Lankans and we’ll be one happy family, just that some of them will have to sit at the kids’ table.
Former ICC President Ehsan Mani has found the plan offensive especially when you register that all ICC matches between 2015-2023 will be held in India, Australia and England. For starters that itself is arbitrary and selfish and scarcely augurs well for the future of cricket per se. Former ICC bosses Malcolm Speed and Malcolm Gray have also mumbled their agreement with Mani.
Of the $300 million that would be up for grabs if this re-organization goes through, the biggest chunk would go to the “unholy” trinity rather than the associates and affiliates for whom it was meant, consequently making them poorer in standing and prestige even if they are, paradoxically, a trifle richer with their share of the increased quantity of crumbs.
Greed will win in the end and pride will take a tumble. The ICC is not likely to take on these three nations and the scent of money will quiver the nostrils of all the members. After all, what’s a little humble pie and a seat in the back of the bus if it comes studded with enough shillings.
-
{{#bullets}}
- {{value}} {{/bullets}}